Zero tolerance for legislators' per diems

If your answer is nothing, zero, zilch, squat, nada, goose egg, zippo, nil, jack, bupkis, diddly or not a plug nickel, you are likely not a state legislator.

If the answer is anything over any of the above amounts, congratulations on your election. Now would you please do the right thing and make it a priority to get rid of this arrogant abuse of power?

Massachusetts state legislators have the option of accepting a daily payment, ranging from $10 per day for those who live near Boston to $100 per day for those who live on Nantucket.

It's called a "per diem," which, I believe, loosely translates from the Latin to, "yet another way for the state to stick it to the average citizen."

Hey, I said loosely.

Just so we're all on the same page here: State legislators earn a minimum $60,000 salary -- i.e., money for going to work -- and more for committee chairmanships, etc. Over and above that, they can, if they choose, receive a daily stipend for ... going to work.

Bearing in mind that for many of these folks, representing you at the Statehouse and helping to craft the legislation that will determine the future course of our great commonwealth is but a second, part-time job, a way to boost their income and their profile while giving them something to do when they're not in court, it's an offense that some of them would even think of accepting this obvious perk of the office.

Yet accept it some do.

Advertisement

(It should be noted that others, to their credit, do not accept it.)

You can't fault them for accepting the perk. It's there. You can, however, fault a state government that is so out of whack that it allows such an obvious misuse of taxpayer money.

And while it's true that legislators are taking a pay cut of $1,100 this year -- thanks to a state law that ties their salary to the state's median-household income -- $60,000 is still a pretty good salary, don't you think?

(Don't ask Martin Linsky of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government that question. He said in a recent Sun article that 60-large "is not enough for a full-time job." Really? A show of hands, please: Is there anybody out there in unemploymentland who would take 60 grand, not to mention a per diem, for a full-time job? I thought so.)

And if being a legislator is your primary job, and 60 grand isn't enough, get a second job. That's what real folks do.

Legislators have all sorts of reasons for defending the per diem. Those from western Massachusetts or the Cape, for instance, say it costs them much more to commute to Boston than those who live closer to the city, and that they incur additional expenses if they have to spend the night in Boston. All true.

So don't take the job. If you live in West Adams and you're thinking about running for the Legislature, you hopefully realize that you have to travel to Boston a lot, and you hopefully know where Boston is, and you take all that into account. If you decide to run anyway, take the $60,000 and be happy with it.

Regardless of what state legislators think of themselves, they are still state employees, and other state employees do not -- and should not -- get more money, above and beyond their salary just for going to work.

Since legislators' salaries are tied to the median household income, let's tie their per diems to the median household per diem -- nothing, zero, zilch, squat, nada, goose egg ... you get the point.

Welcome to your discussion forum: Sign in with a Disqus account or your social networking account for your comment to be posted immediately, provided it meets the guidelines. (READ HOW.)
Comments made here are the sole responsibility of the person posting them; these comments do not reflect the opinion of The Sun. So keep it civil.

ODESSA, Texas (AP) — A West Texas man has been charged with impersonating an officer by using sirens and flashing lights to skip to the head of the drive-thru line at a fast-food restaurant. Full Story

Sufjan Stevens, "Carrie & Lowell" (Asthmatic Kitty) Plucked strings and pulsing keyboards dominate the distinctive arrangements on Sufjan Stevens' latest album, and in the absence of a rhythm section, they serve to keep time. Full Story